Thanks, maybe - or: dilemma n. A situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or mutually exclusive?

At the present US government figures for the fossil fuel cost of ethanol production and transportation, it can be clearly deduced that it would put less carbon into the air if corn fields were planted with large trees and slightly additional fossil fuel amounts were combined with the amount now used to produce biofuel for automotive fuels. Said more clearly; it puts less net carbon into the air to grow large trees on cornfields and make gasoline from natural gas or coal than it does to produce ethanol. ..HG..

Nuclear fission energy is the clear answer to reducing CO2 and fueling automobiles. Coal and natural gas displaced from electricity production can be used for automotive fuel. It can also be used to reduce the coal or gas needed to produce gasoline if steam is used from the reactor for processing energy. Even with present reactors it is also possible to produce some hydrogen at a cost low enough to be used to make gasoline that is cost competitive with imported oil. Plug-in-Hybrid cars can also substantially reduce the need for crude oil. ..HG..

HG,

I will not contradict you on nuclear fission. That is probably the correct solution. If only we can find one person that will invest in nuclear fission without a centrally planned government providing a financial sweetener.

This story reads like an out and out apology. A valid point is raised perhaps in the award to a single source. Anyone in business knows it is fatal to rely on a single bidder for services.

The excuse about trucking from midwest?? WTF?? How far does OPEC oil travel? All the crap at Wal Mart?? Costco? Builders Emporium?? Get real.

We suggest Mr. Wuebben urge the Association to reconsider and ACT now. Rejecting money to build alternative energy infrastructure is something like a doctor refusing to administer penicillin because it is made by big pharma.

Or if an State agency is needed, AQMD should request the funds, get two other contractors and start building. Be sure to add quick charge pedestals in each station to confirm the "New Energy" approach. Promoting these stations as clean, sustainable energy alternatives is a great opportunity to start building the future. Don't blow it.

Kudos to SCAG. Corn ethanol for energy is worse than useless, a welfare program for large landowners and agribusiness.

But incentives are not pure evil; wind and Solar power now need substantial incentives to be competitive. For that matter so does a lot of domestic oil production. Ending all fossil fuel tax breaks and production incentives would immediately make non-fossil energy more competitive.

California has tons of rice straw in the central valley and forest product waste from timber in the north. It seems like California can make its own ethanol or at least use the Syntec mixed alcohol gasification method.

If CA does not need money, they should not accept any.

What they are saying is that California does not make much ethanol, most of it is brought in from corn producing states, so why put in more E85 pumps? I can think of lots of reasons why you would, but I guess that they do not see it that way.

California has budget problems. If they don't make it in
California, they shouldn't buy it from someone else. If
California wanted to produce ethanol in quantities large
enough, I don't see why it couldn't; they're the largest
crop producer in the world. It should have plenty of
feedstock. I think they just want to go in a different
direction. With the new found reserves of Natural Gas
in this country, you'd think there'd be a push to
add it to the offerings of the local filling stations.
3rd world countries have had no problem building an
infrastructure for CNG refueling and converting gasoline
engines to use it. It would be a great bridge to better
solutions down the road.

I wonder what is Mr Wuebben's connection to Pearson Fuels? He seems pretty adamant to get this crackpipe of a grant going, although it flies in the face of policy. and corn-based ethanol is a scam. it raises the price of general foodstuffs (from corn in the can to ANYTHING with corn syrup in it to basic feedstock for farms which then raises their prices), it reduces the mileage of any vehicle it infests, and the ONLY people who have every made any money off it are Archer Daniels-Midland and Monsanto. Screw corn-based ethanol. Other feedstocks are available for ethanol. go algae!